What choices did Louisa May Alcott make so Little Women was more interesting?

Alcott sends Mr. March away to the Civil War. This choice allows readers to see the relationships among the March sisters and Marmee without the overshadowing presence of a man in the home, a dynamic that is arguably more interesting than the dynamic presented when he returns home. This also adds some suspense because of the danger posed to Mr. March, and thus the welfare of the family. His injuries also take Marmee away for...

Alcott sends Mr. March away to the Civil War. This choice allows readers to see the relationships among the March sisters and Marmee without the overshadowing presence of a man in the home, a dynamic that is arguably more interesting than the dynamic presented when he returns home. This also adds some suspense because of the danger posed to Mr. March, and thus the welfare of the family. His injuries also take Marmee away for some time, giving the girls a chance to really prove their maturity, especially when dealing with Beth's illness. Her scarlet fever, contracted when she was helping the poor Hummel family, as well as the passing of their baby, also help to heighten tension in the novel and to hold readers' interest.

The love story, of course, between Meg and Mr. Brooke, as well as Laurie's proposal to Jo, help to increase interest in the text. We've become invested in these characters' feelings, especially Jo's and Laurie's, and though we can see her rejection of him coming, he cannot. His proposal, followed by his European exploits, increases interest because readers are left to wonder, for some time, whether Jo's rejection of Laurie will change him for the worse forever. Romances and unrequited love are elements of plot that are often used to retain reader or viewer interest.

How does the story "Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?" show how women are oppressed in a patriarchal society?

From the very outset of the story, Oates implies that women are expected to adhere to traditional gender roles. In the first paragraph, she indicates that Connie meets society’s expectations for women by prioritizing physical beauty above all else, as Connie thinks “she was pretty and that was everything.” Connie notes that she is compared unfavorably to her sister, who “saved money and helped clean the house and cooked”; these activities also reflect traditional roles...

From the very outset of the story, Oates implies that women are expected to adhere to traditional gender roles. In the first paragraph, she indicates that Connie meets society’s expectations for women by prioritizing physical beauty above all else, as Connie thinks “she was pretty and that was everything.” Connie notes that she is compared unfavorably to her sister, who “saved money and helped clean the house and cooked”; these activities also reflect traditional roles for women. Ultimately, though, looks seem to be more important (“Connie thought that her mother preferred her to June because she was prettier”), which suggests that women in this world are objectified rather than having agency of their own. This provides the backdrop for the larger action of the story.

The tension between Connie and the ironically named Arnold Friend serves as the most obvious representation of the oppression of women within a patriarchal society. Friend finds Connie at her home, a place that is supposed to be safe and secure, and threatens her family. Throughout the characters’ interactions, Oates carefully chooses words that highlight the unwanted aggression of men toward women. Arnold initially approaches Connie “grinning at her,” while Connie is on the defense, “careful to show no interest or pleasure.” As Arnold becomes more and more insistent that Connie bend to his will, she experiences “another wave of dizziness and fear rising in her,” viewing him as “just a blur” and feeling “light-headed.” Connie is “panting” and her fingers are “shaking” as Arnold tells her, “I’m always nice at first, the first time” and then “gently” questions why she would bother to lock the flimsy screen door. As he points out, “This place you are now—inside your daddy’s house—is nothing but a cardboard box I can knock down any time.” Ultimately Connie does give in, recognizing her body “wasn’t really hers.” Symbolically, Arnold Friend represents male desire for women, and Connie is forced to yield to his will against her wishes, just as women have so often been forced to do what men want.

What member or members of his family try to get Gregor out of bed ?

The story “Metamorphosis” by Franz Kafka begins with Gregor waking up and discovering that he has turned into a bug. Despite this startling revelation, Gregor continues to lie in bed and desires to continue sleeping. However, Gregor has work and his family members urge him to get out of bed before ascertaining Gregor's situation.

First, his mother encourages him to get out of bed. She quietly beseeches him to move from his bed by saying,...

The story “Metamorphosis” by Franz Kafka begins with Gregor waking up and discovering that he has turned into a bug. Despite this startling revelation, Gregor continues to lie in bed and desires to continue sleeping. However, Gregor has work and his family members urge him to get out of bed before ascertaining Gregor's situation.

First, his mother encourages him to get out of bed. She quietly beseeches him to move from his bed by saying, “It’s quarter to seven. Don’t you want to be on your way?” Although his mother seems to care about him, he refuses to tell her why he is late or what he is experiencing.

Subsequently, his father urges him to get out of bed, especially when Gregor’s manager comes to his house. His father seems to be more forceful or direct about him getting up. He utilizes a deep voice and asks, “What’s going on?” Although his more direct approach might seem harsh, it is later illustrated that his father does care about Gregor.

Furthermore, his sister also asks Gregor to get out of bed. However, her reasons and approach appear different. For example, she says, “Gregor? Are you all right? Do you need anything?” Her sisterly kindness is clearly shown by her response to the situation.

Thus, it appears that Gregor’s mother, father, and sister all ask Gregor to get out of bed. Although they might have different reasons, they seem to all care about the situation. Their requests become even more urgent when Gregor’s manager arrives.  

Why did the Simon Commission come to India?

The Simon Commission came to India in 1927 to generate a report on how well the 1919 Government of India Act was working. The Government of India Act established the new Indian constitution and Great Britain appointed British officials to the Simon Commission in order to oversee the effectiveness of the constitution. Sir John Simon and Clement Atlee shared joint chairmanship of the commission. Indians boycotted the Simon Commission due the exclusion of Indian representatives...

The Simon Commission came to India in 1927 to generate a report on how well the 1919 Government of India Act was working. The Government of India Act established the new Indian constitution and Great Britain appointed British officials to the Simon Commission in order to oversee the effectiveness of the constitution. Sir John Simon and Clement Atlee shared joint chairmanship of the commission. Indians boycotted the Simon Commission due the exclusion of Indian representatives and it was also met with harsh criticism from the Indian National Congress and other involved Indian political parties. 

The Simon Commission report is still regarded in high esteem by British Officials but its findings were ultimately offset by the declaration of October 1929. The October 1929 declaration's goal was for Indians to pursue dominion status whereas the Simon Commission proposed provincial autonomy without parliamentary responsibility.   

Which was the main commodity produced by the Spanish in the Caribbean? gold sugar silver cotton

The main commodity produced by Spain (or any European country for that matter) would be sugar.  Sugar was a very valuable commodity in the colonial era--it was rare enough to be valuable in Europe.  Spices were still a luxury though sugar plantations would make sweets available to more people.  Sugar was also important in making rum, a staple on the world's sailing vessels.  Rum was often included as part of sailors' pay.  it allowed sugar...

The main commodity produced by Spain (or any European country for that matter) would be sugar.  Sugar was a very valuable commodity in the colonial era--it was rare enough to be valuable in Europe.  Spices were still a luxury though sugar plantations would make sweets available to more people.  Sugar was also important in making rum, a staple on the world's sailing vessels.  Rum was often included as part of sailors' pay.  it allowed sugar to be preserved on long voyages.  Sugar was also important because its growth was part of the Triangle Trade which provided trade goods from Europe and slaves from Africa.  Per your other choices, gold and silver would be important to the Spanish, but only from North and South America.  The Spanish hoped to find gold in the Caribbean, but it was not there.  Cotton would be too labor intensive and would overly tax the Caribbean soil.  

Compare and contrast Matt's motives in "Killings" by Andre Dubus with Emily's in "A Rose for Emily" by William Faulkner.

In "Killings," Matt Fowler shoots and kills Richard Strout because Strout has murdered his youngest son, Frank, in a premeditated act sparked by jealousy.  Matt's motive is pure revenge, and he has an accomplice in his friend Willis.  They carefully plan Strout's murder and cover up his disappearance.  Matt tells his wife, Ruth, what he has done.

In "A Rose for Emily," Emily Grierson kills Homer Barron with rat poison.  Homer was a Yankee with...

In "Killings," Matt Fowler shoots and kills Richard Strout because Strout has murdered his youngest son, Frank, in a premeditated act sparked by jealousy.  Matt's motive is pure revenge, and he has an accomplice in his friend Willis.  They carefully plan Strout's murder and cover up his disappearance.  Matt tells his wife, Ruth, what he has done.

In "A Rose for Emily," Emily Grierson kills Homer Barron with rat poison.  Homer was a Yankee with whom she had been seen publicly and was presumably in a romantic relationship, but her remaining family and people of the town judged it inappropriate.  Despite the fact that it looked like Emily and Homer would marry, the marriage did not happen, and Homer Barron disappeared after being seen going into Emily's house. Years later, Homer Barron's rotted remains are found in Emily's bed after she has died. 

The motives for the deaths are mostly dissimilar.  Matt kills Strout because he feels he must avenge his son's death. Emily Grierson's motives are less obvious, but it is arguable that she murders Homer because he is going to leave her.  Because Emily kept Homer's remains with her, it is possible that she had a pathological desire to keep their relationship "alive." Emily does not have an accomplice, and she tells no one of her crime.

It is also possible to argue that the murders are similar in that Emily's murder can also be seen as an act of revenge if she was angry at having her reputation ruined and being abandoned by Homer. Both murders are premeditated and covered up by the perpetrators. 

Who is Miss Caroline?

Miss Caroline Fisher is Scout's first grade teacher. She hails from Winston County and has a rough first day of school. Miss Caroline is portrayed as an attractive, young woman. She is an inexperienced teacher and struggles to maintain control of her students. Miss Caroline is also portrayed as naive and rigid for criticizing Scout for reading at home with her father. Instead of praising Scout for her unique, advanced abilities, Miss Caroline discourages Scout...

Miss Caroline Fisher is Scout's first grade teacher. She hails from Winston County and has a rough first day of school. Miss Caroline is portrayed as an attractive, young woman. She is an inexperienced teacher and struggles to maintain control of her students. Miss Caroline is also portrayed as naive and rigid for criticizing Scout for reading at home with her father. Instead of praising Scout for her unique, advanced abilities, Miss Caroline discourages Scout by telling her that she should not read or write at home. Miss Caroline also fails to properly punish Scout for her apparent disrespect and instead humors the classes by giving Scout several swats on the palm of her hand with a ruler. The neighboring teacher, Miss Blount, is even forced to quiet Miss Caroline's class because the students are laughing hysterically.

Later on in the day, Miss Caroline loses her composure after witnessing a cootie crawl out of Burris Ewell's hair. After telling him to go home and bathe, Burris gets an attitude with her and ends up calling Miss Caroline a "snot-nosed slut of a schoolteacher," which reduces her to tears. Overall, Miss Caroline is an inexperienced school teacher with a narrow view of education. She has a difficult first day teaching in Maycomb County. 

What are the themes of A Different Mirror?

A Different Mirror by Ronald Takaki has several themes, including:

• that America has a multicultural heritage that is largely unacknowledged by history


• that the same tactics used against the Native Americans were later employed against people of other races and cultures


• and that different groups were used against each other to benefit the ruling class.

Each theme contributes to Takaki's overall message that America is a melting pot of cultures and people, each of which contributed to the country and all of which is largely ignored in traditional history classes.

Takaki begins A Different Mirror by explaining how non-European cultures' contributions to America have largely been ignored. He says that facts that paint the European-majority ruling class in a negative light were left out of the history books and that this removes much of the history of the other people who participated in American culture. He writes his own alternate history that details colonization by Europeans, the struggle of Native Americans, the history of African Americans, and the stories of many other large cultural groups that contributed to the United States.

He also describes in detail how the attacks used to make people afraid of Native Americans were later employed against other groups. For example, Native Americans were described as uneducated. So were African Americans, the Irish, Mexican people, and Eastern Europeans. Each time, this narrative was utilized to keep people in those groups from integrating into the culture and power structure.

Other common negative narratives centered on stigmatizing different cultural practices and religions and painting other groups as violent or dangerous.

Finally, Takaki discusses different times throughout the book that the ruling class has suppressed people of other races or cultures. For example, he says that Thomas Jefferson would be outwardly friendly to Native American groups who weren't violent toward white Americans. At the same time, he was working to turn them into farmers who followed the same culture as the ruling class. Takaki writes that "in blaming the Indians for their own decline, Jefferson insisted that the transfer of Indian lands to whites had been done fairly and legally" (46). This shows one way that the ruling class of white Europeans took large amounts of land, which translated to having more power.

He also discusses how strikes were broken when owners of factories later pitted black workers against the white workers. A company representative distributed 20,000 pamphlets warning black workers to not join white labor unions—playing the two against each other. The only group this benefitted was the group that managed the companies where these people worked.

Why did the United States not enter the war in 1914?

When World War I began, the United States remained neutral. There are various reasons for why the United States remained neutral. One reason was that there were many Americans who came from Germany, Great Britain, and France. As a result, there were many people who did not want the United States to go to war against the country from which they had emigrated. A second reason is that we had developed a good trade with...

When World War I began, the United States remained neutral. There are various reasons for why the United States remained neutral. One reason was that there were many Americans who came from Germany, Great Britain, and France. As a result, there were many people who did not want the United States to go to war against the country from which they had emigrated. A second reason is that we had developed a good trade with the countries of the Allied Powers and the countries of the Central Powers. We did not want to risk losing some of that trade by entering World War I.

The United States also felt that some of the issues leading to the start of World War I had little impact on the country. Many Americans viewed the conflict as a struggle between the old powers of Europe, which was of little importance to the United States.

Events occurred that eventually changed the American point of view and led to the entrance of the United States into World War I in April 1917.

What does To Kill a Mockingbird reveal about America? Is it still relevant in America today?

Many issues depicted in To Kill a Mockingbird are still relevant today—even though the novel was written in the 1960s and set in the 1930s.  The problems of the 1930s and the 1960s are still problems today: we have not wiped out racism or elitism, and we still struggle with treatment of those who are mentally ill.  In short, the US still has many problems with what we now refer to as hate crimes (even if that terminology would not have been used in the 1930s). A 2016 Federal Bureau of Investigation report "reveals 5,850 criminal incidents and 6,885 related offenses that were motivated by bias against race, ethnicity, ancestry, religion, sexual orientation, disability, gender, and gender identity."  In To Kill a Mockingbird, obviously race bias takes center stage, but it is not the only problem that receives attention.  

Ancestry is a cause of misunderstanding and profiling in To Kill a Mockingbird.  The Finch family heritage is highlighted in the text, and the reader is able to infer that Atticus is considered an oddity in his family's proud lineage.  Specifically, Atticus's parenting style is not acceptable to Aunt Alexandra, who leaves her genteel family property to come provide what she considers a "proper" feminine role model for Scout.  On the other side of the ancestry equation, Mayella Ewell's heritage is a burden. She is expected to do very little to advance her station in life because of her family's dysfunction.  Atticus is expected to do more, and Mayella is expected to do no more.

Arthur "Boo" Radley is mistrusted and feared because of his unnamed mental disability. In their fear of the unknown, the citizens of Maycomb have made him into a pariah.  Even Atticus's wisdom can go only so far in Radley's case.  Atticus thinks it would be a kindness to leave Arthur Radley alone, but solitude does not address whether Arthur could be helped or not.  Yes, Boo Radley seems to want to keep to himself, but it is hard to say whether that is his actual nature or whether it is a defense mechanism against a hateful world that has showed him very little acceptance in the past.

Even just a brief examination (such as the one above) shows that To Kill a Mockingbird presents issues that have not gone away in over fifty years.  The issues of ancestry and mental illness are both hooks for a modern reader to consider when reading To Kill a Mockingbird.  They mattered in the 1930s and the 1960s--and they still matter today.

What was Mendel's contribution to science and what were the resulting benefits?

Gregor Mendel was an Austrian monk, botanist, and the father of genetics. He conducted a number of experiments and observational studies of the plants he tended around the monastery. His most famous discovery resulted from working with pea plants, where he noticed that traits like blossom color followed a particular pattern of inheritance. Today we call this pattern and its study "Mendelian Genetics." Mendel determined that certain traits in his pea plants were either "dominant"...

Gregor Mendel was an Austrian monk, botanist, and the father of genetics. He conducted a number of experiments and observational studies of the plants he tended around the monastery. His most famous discovery resulted from working with pea plants, where he noticed that traits like blossom color followed a particular pattern of inheritance. Today we call this pattern and its study "Mendelian Genetics." Mendel determined that certain traits in his pea plants were either "dominant" or "recessive," and that the recessive traits were far less likely to be expressed as compared to the dominant.

Have you ever worked with Punnett squares in science class? This type of diagram draws directly from Mendel's identification of dominant and recessive genes. By "crossing" two specimens of known genotype, you can predict the probability of all possible resulting phenotypes. 

Though Mendel made no efforts to publicize his own work, it has become indispensable to the study of genetics. He was the first to create the idea of the connection between an expressed trait and its determinant, or the phenotype and genotype. Later work by scientists like William Bateson expanded upon and revised Mendel's theories of inheritance. The combination of Mendel's work with that of Charles Darwin has laid the foundation for the modern study of genetics, biology, and evolution.

Without Mendel, there might well not be a study of genetics. Without the study of genetics, humans would lack the capability to better understand and intervene in the workings of biological inheritance. Conditions like hemophilia in humans as well as certain types of blight in plants may be addressed and remedied through genetic interventions.

What is the main lesson of "The Interlopers"?

One lesson that the narrative of "The Interlopers" presents is that people should not become mired in issues that are not essential to the quality of their lives.

The plot of Saki's story revolves around an ancient grudge that two young men have allowed to become foremost in their lives as they have inflamed the hatred between their two families, who once disputed a small tract of land:

The feud might, perhaps, have died down...

One lesson that the narrative of "The Interlopers" presents is that people should not become mired in issues that are not essential to the quality of their lives.

The plot of Saki's story revolves around an ancient grudge that two young men have allowed to become foremost in their lives as they have inflamed the hatred between their two families, who once disputed a small tract of land:

The feud might, perhaps, have died down or been compromised if the personal ill-will of the two men had not stood in the way; as boys they had thirsted for one another's blood, as men each prayed that misfortune might fall on the other.

Of course, the old maxim "Be careful what you wish for" is also applicable to the narrative of "The Interlopers," as well as the senselessness of their feud, since misfortune does, indeed, befall the two enemies. Unfortunately, it has taken a disaster to effect a change of heart in the two men, and as fate would have it, this realization comes all too late. For it is only after the two men are pinioned under the fallen branches of a huge beech tree, lying hurt and helpless, that Ulrich von Gradwitz arrives at the understanding of the real insignificance of his feud with Georg Znaeym in light of their life and death situation. Unfortunately, when the two old enemies finally put away their feud, it is too late because they are confronted with death in the shape of fierce wolves who hear their cries for help.

What are five questions you would ask Harper Lee if she was alive today?

Harper Lee was very reluctant to talk much in public, so there are many questions you could ask her. Harper Lee was a very interesting person. She grew up in Alabama, just like Scout, and her father was also a lawyer, so perhaps you could ask her some questions about her background and history. Her sister was also a very interesting person who still worked as a lawyer in their father's firm into her nineties,...

Harper Lee was very reluctant to talk much in public, so there are many questions you could ask her. Harper Lee was a very interesting person. She grew up in Alabama, just like Scout, and her father was also a lawyer, so perhaps you could ask her some questions about her background and history. Her sister was also a very interesting person who still worked as a lawyer in their father's firm into her nineties, so maybe you could also ask her questions about her sister, if that interests you. Another notable fact about her is her friendship with another famous author, Truman Capote, so maybe there are some interesting questions there you could ask. Lastly, To Kill A Mockingbird was the only book she published until the very recent Go Set A Watchman, so perhaps you could ask her about the writing of the two novels and the long gap between their publications.

Why do you think the narrator begins the story by telling us he is not mad?

The narrator of "The Tell-Tale Heart" by Edgar Allan Poe is, as we discover as we read through the narrative, clearly insane by our standards. He also has an obsession with convincing us of his sanity, and emphasizing his rationality and intelligence.

From the point of view of the narrator, the story is almost an argument proving that he is sane, by giving examples of he cleverness and planning. Thus he sets out his point,...

The narrator of "The Tell-Tale Heart" by Edgar Allan Poe is, as we discover as we read through the narrative, clearly insane by our standards. He also has an obsession with convincing us of his sanity, and emphasizing his rationality and intelligence.

From the point of view of the narrator, the story is almost an argument proving that he is sane, by giving examples of he cleverness and planning. Thus he sets out his point, that he is not insane, at the beginning of the story and then tells a narrative with concrete examples that are intended to prove his sanity.

From the point of view of the reader, the way the narrator repeatedly insists that he is sane gives us our first clue that the narrator is, in fact, insane. People who are normal and sane by the standards of their cultures do not need to insist on their sanity.

Was the southern economy dependent on slavery?

Yes, the southern economy was dependent on slave labor. Rather than industrializing like the northern states, the southern states were primarily agriculture. Before the American Revolution, the southern colonies mainly relied on growing tobacco as a cash crop, which, in turn, depended on slave labor to be profitable and make fortunes for the plantation owners. After the invention of the cotton gin, the southern states relied most heavily on growing cotton, again a labor intensive...

Yes, the southern economy was dependent on slave labor. Rather than industrializing like the northern states, the southern states were primarily agriculture. Before the American Revolution, the southern colonies mainly relied on growing tobacco as a cash crop, which, in turn, depended on slave labor to be profitable and make fortunes for the plantation owners. After the invention of the cotton gin, the southern states relied most heavily on growing cotton, again a labor intensive form of agriculture that remained profitable because of the low-cost labor provided by slaves. Slaves also were important to sugar plantations in Louisiana and to growing wheat and hemp in many southern states. The United States suffered from a labor shortage at this time and hired help was more expensive and considered more unreliable than slaves, as free people could quit at any time. After the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, the southern economy suffered and the wealthy plantations could no longer flourish. 

How did the teachings of Moses the raven create problems for the pigs? What do you believe Moses represents?

Moses taught the animals that there was a place called Sugarcandy Mountain, and said that all the animals would go to it after they died and live in paradise. In Sugarcandy Mountain, the animals would find sugar, clover was always in season, and linseed cake grew on the hedges. Moses was a smooth talker and some of the animals believed in the existence of Sugarcandy Mountain. The pigs had to struggle to convince them it...

Moses taught the animals that there was a place called Sugarcandy Mountain, and said that all the animals would go to it after they died and live in paradise. In Sugarcandy Mountain, the animals would find sugar, clover was always in season, and linseed cake grew on the hedges. Moses was a smooth talker and some of the animals believed in the existence of Sugarcandy Mountain. The pigs had to struggle to convince them it did not really exist.

Although the text doesn't say so, the implication is that by focusing on the dream of a wonderful imaginary paradise after death, the animals were diverted from the task of building a better world for themselves in this life. This creates a problem for the pigs, at least at first, as they want everyone to rally around making Animal Farm the best place it can be and not be lost in dreams.

Moses represents the clergy. He is similar to a priest. Oftentimes priests, who did not labor like common workers, were encouraged by the owners and landlords to encourage people to accept miserable and exploited positions on earth with the promise they would be rewarded after death in heaven. Moses, like a human priest, doesn't work and is the special "pet" of Farmer Jones, and his descriptions of Sugarcandy Mountain sound very much like an animal version of heaven. As the book says:

It [Sugarcandy Mountain] was situated somewhere up in the sky, a little distance beyond the clouds, Moses said. ... The animals hated Moses because he told tales and did no work, but some of them believed in Sugarcandy Mountain, and the pigs had to argue very hard to persuade them that there was no such place.

Find the area of the zone of a sphere formed by revolving the graph of `y=sqrt(9-x^2) , 0

The function `y = sqrt(9 -x^2) `  describes a circle centred on the origin with radius 3.

If we rotate this function in the range `0 <=x <=2 `  about the y-axis we obtain a surface of revolution that is specifically a zone of a sphere with radius 3.

A zone of a sphere is the surface area between two heights on the sphere (surface area of ground between two latitudes when thinking in terms of planet Earth).

When `0 <=x<=2 `  for this given sphere (which can be written equivalently as `x^2 + y^2 = 9 `) the corresponding range for `y ` is `sqrt(5) <=y <= 3 `

Since this range includes the top of the sphere, the zone we are considering is more specifically a cap. The equivalent on planet Earth would be a polar region.

To calculate the surface area of this cap of a sphere with radius 3, we require the formula for the surface area of revolution of a function `x = f(y) ` (note, I have swapped the roles of `x ` and `y ` for convenience, as the formula is typically written for rotating about the x-axis rather than about the y-axis as we are doing here).

The formula for the surface area of revolution of a function `x = f(y) ` rotated about the y-axis in the range `a <=y <=b ` is given by

`A = int_a^b 2pi x sqrt(1+ ((dx)/(dy))^2) \quad dy`

Here, we have that `a = sqrt(5) ` and `b = 3 ` . Also, we have that

`(dx)/(dy) = -y/sqrt(9-y^2) `

so that the cap of interest has area

`A = int_sqrt(5)^3 2pi sqrt(9-y^2) sqrt(1+(y^2)/(9-y^2)) \quad dy `

which can be simplified to

`A = 2pi int_sqrt(5)^3 sqrt((9-y^2) + y^2) \quad dy`  `= 2pi int_sqrt(5)^3 3 dy = 6pi y |_sqrt(5)^3`

So that the zone (specifically cap of a sphere) area of interest A = `pi(18 - 6sqrt(5)) `

This can also be calculated using the formula for calculating the surface area of the cap of a sphere as A = `pi (a^2 + h^2) ` where a is the radius at the lower limit of the cap and h is the perpendiculat height of the cap. Here this would give A = `pi (4 + (3-sqrt(5))^2) = pi (4 + 9 -6sqrt(5) + 5) = pi(18 -6sqrt(5)) ` (ie the same result).

What is resonance?

Resonanceis a phenomenon of maximizing the amplitude of a periodic motion, oscillation, or vibration. The best way to understand how it occurs is by considering a swing. If you are sitting on a stationary swing and would like to get it swinging as high as possible, you need to rock yourself forward and backward in a regular, periodic way. Notice, however, that if you do that very slowly - if your forward/backward motion has...

Resonance is a phenomenon of maximizing the amplitude of a periodic motion, oscillation, or vibration. The best way to understand how it occurs is by considering a swing. If you are sitting on a stationary swing and would like to get it swinging as high as possible, you need to rock yourself forward and backward in a regular, periodic way. Notice, however, that if you do that very slowly - if your forward/backward motion has low frequency - you will not be able to swing very high. If you do it too quickly, it also won't work - the swing will not move. You have to figure out, by trial and error, exactly how often you need to lean forward and then lean back so that the swing will start reaching higher and higher every time it goes up. The frequency you have found equals the "natural" frequency of "you and the swing" system - this would be the frequency of your motion if the swing with you on it was pushed once and then left alone. Similarly, if you are pushing someone else on a swing, you will get the best results - that is, the maximum amplitude - if you push every time the swing is at it highest point. By doing this, you again make sure that your "driving" frequency equals the natural frequency of the "swing and someone else" system.

Resonance can be established in any system, not necessarily mechanical, where the periodic motion, or oscillation, occurs. For example, oscillation of electrical current can be established in a circuit consisting of a capacitor and an inductor. The natural frequency of the circuit would depend on the capacitance and the inductance.This oscillation would die down - decrease in amplitude until there is no current left - due to the resistance in the circuit. However, if the circuit is connected to the external voltage source supplying the voltage with the same frequency as natural, the amplitude of the current will reach its maximum possible value. Also, a radio station broadcasting a signal at the natural frequency of such a circuit will establish in it electrical oscillations with maximum amplitude. These oscillations can then be converted into sound - which is what is done in a radio receiver, and other electronic devices. 

The reference links below describe other examples of resonance, such as the resonance in air columns and strings.

What does the death of Ivan Ilyich teach us about happiness?

For one thing, it teaches us that happiness isn't what we often think it to be. Many of us tend to seek happiness in wealth and material goods; that's the kind of life that Ivan Ilyich has led. But it hasn't brought him happiness, because the things of this world are fleeting. It doesn't matter how good they temporarily make us feel, they can never bring us true, lasting happiness. Leading a materialistic lifestyle is...

For one thing, it teaches us that happiness isn't what we often think it to be. Many of us tend to seek happiness in wealth and material goods; that's the kind of life that Ivan Ilyich has led. But it hasn't brought him happiness, because the things of this world are fleeting. It doesn't matter how good they temporarily make us feel, they can never bring us true, lasting happiness. Leading a materialistic lifestyle is a way of putting off the ultimate question—the question of our own mortality. We acquire material things and pursue endless diversions to divert attention from the question of our own inevitable demise.

It's only when Ivan Ilyich realizes the shallow superficiality of the life he's been leading that he no longer fears death as he used to. And it is then, in his final few days on earth, that he achieves the kind of true happiness previously closed off to him.

How is "A Good Man Is Hard to Find" by Flannery O'Connor related to the idea of good versus evil?

O'Connor's no-holds-barred story inspires us to question how good and evil are defined. Perhaps, in that sense, how we relate good versus evil in the story will depend on how we judge or interpret the characters' actions.

In the story, the grandmother sets herself up in her family's eyes (and ours) as a paragon of virtue. So, we must decide whether we will accept this exemplary image she flaunts before us or whether we will reject it. We are told that she refuses to go to Florida because the Misfit (a criminal) happens to be heading that way; she thinks that going to Florida will potentially expose her family to the machinations of a felon. Interestingly however, she has no qualms about deceiving her son, Bailey.

In the story, we are told that Bailey doesn't like the idea of traveling with pets; the grandmother manages to bring Pitty Sing along anyway. She hides the feline in a basket and places it under her enormous, black valise. Interestingly, she rationalizes her deception readily and still thinks of herself as a lady. To the grandmother, a lady is someone who dresses the part and entertains certain preconceived notions about life. Her definition of "good" is largely superficial.

As the story continues, we begin to realize how self-deceived, self-centered, and hypocritical the grandmother really is. She consistently lectures her family about doing the right thing. However, she readily tells her grandchildren a story with racist undertones and later concocts a flashy story to goad Bailey into making a detour. Her earlier subterfuge about Pitty Sing tempts us to doubt her elaborate story about a secret panel at the plantation house. By the time she faces death before the Misfit's gun, we are challenged to rethink our own perception of good and evil.

Although the grandmother purports to be spiritually adept, she fails to recognize true evil when she sees it. Perhaps another interpretation would be that she refuses to recognize it because she harbors a predominantly sanitized conception of good and evil. She attempts to flatter the Misfit and to play on his sympathies for a "lady." However, the Misfit is impervious to her feminine wiles. He questions the reality of God and refuses to live anything other than a hedonistic lifestyle. When the grandmother dies, she does so with poignant last words: "Why you're one of my babies. You're one of my own children!" Her words indicate her final epiphany about the universal humanity in all of us.

The Misfit kills the grandmother presumably to avoid being exposed to law enforcement. Superficial assumptions of goodness have no place in his life; he's primarily focused on survival and self-preservation. The Misfit exemplifies unmitigated evil, while the grandmother epitomizes sterile religiosity. So, how we relate good versus evil in the story largely depends on how we define "good" and "evil" in regard to the characters. Will we define the grandmother as "good" because of the way she portrays herself? Or will we define her as "evil" because she is, in many ways, as self-absorbed as the Misfit?

On the other hand, is the Misfit "evil" because he chooses to kill the grandmother and her family in cold blood? In other words, are there degrees of "evil" that O'Connor inspires us to see through the characters in her story?

What was Christopher Columbus' motivation to go to the New World?

Columbus's motivation for his voyage was to reach Asia by sailing west. Neither he nor his backers (nor the people who thought his voyage ill-advised) knew that he would reach the "New World" by sailing west. By reaching Asia, he hoped to find a direct route to the markets of Asia, especially the spice islands. Direct trade with merchants there could be fabulously lucrative for whatever European nation that could establish it, and Columbus pitched...

Columbus's motivation for his voyage was to reach Asia by sailing west. Neither he nor his backers (nor the people who thought his voyage ill-advised) knew that he would reach the "New World" by sailing west. By reaching Asia, he hoped to find a direct route to the markets of Asia, especially the spice islands. Direct trade with merchants there could be fabulously lucrative for whatever European nation that could establish it, and Columbus pitched his plan to Portugal, at the time the leader in exploration among the European kingdoms, before he went to the newly unified kingdoms of Castile and Aragon. Obviously the captain who made such a discovery would become among the most celebrated and wealthy men in Europe. Columbus wanted wealth, titles, and fame as well as the satisfaction of proving (against the majority of educated opinion) that one could reach Asia by sailing west. Columbus believed the world much smaller than most scholars, and therefore thought Asia reachable by sea. (All agreed, by the way, that the world was round, and none knew the Americas were there). Columbus also had religious motives. He hoped to spread Christianity to the people that he met in Asia. So his voyages were driven by a combination of personal ambition, the profit motive, and religious piety. 

What are the important components of The Glass Menagerie's setting? How could they be updated to the present time?

Components of the play's setting that are important to the drama are:

• the claustrophobic atmosphere of the Wingfields' apartment


• the urban setting


• the fire escape

The time aspect of the setting could be updated; though Williams set the play in 1937, any time in the twentieth or twenty-first century would work equally well.  The fact that the family is headed by a single, working mother who worries about her daughter's limited prospects for the future...

Components of the play's setting that are important to the drama are:

• the claustrophobic atmosphere of the Wingfields' apartment


• the urban setting


• the fire escape

The time aspect of the setting could be updated; though Williams set the play in 1937, any time in the twentieth or twenty-first century would work equally well.  The fact that the family is headed by a single, working mother who worries about her daughter's limited prospects for the future and the role she wants her son to play in it is integral to the play's themes. The dramatic situation is as plausible today as it was in 1937, when the play is set. Fathers who desert their families are an unfortunately timeless phenomenon. 

The geographic setting could be any medium or large-sized city with densely populated apartment buildings.  Williams chose St. Louis, but the Midwestern setting is not vital to the play's action.  The apartment itself needs to be claustrophobic to convey the lack of privacy for the three adults living in close proximity to one another.  The setting requires proximity to movie theaters and bars, the places where Tom retreats from his mother's demands and expectations. The building's fire escape, which serves as a symbol for Tom's longing to escape a situation that, metaphorically speaking, "threatens his life," is an important part of the setting.

That said, to bring the play completely up to date, Amanda and Tom Wingfield could both be telecommuters who work from home.  Their 24/7 physical closeness could ratchet up the play's tensions.  Laura could drop out of an online course.  The gentleman caller could emerge from an online dating site.  And Tom's escapes through alcohol and movies could be portrayed through furtive drinking at home and an immersion in streaming video.

What connection does Lam draw between Waterloo and the Vietnam War?

In an article for New America Media, second-generation Vietnamese American Andrew Lam relates a trip he and his family once made to the site of the battle of Waterloo. The poignancy of the piece is reflected primarily in the figure of Lam's father, a former South Vietnamese general forced with his family to flee their homeland just before the fall of Saigon in 1975.

General Lam is someone with an extensive knowledge of military history....

In an article for New America Media, second-generation Vietnamese American Andrew Lam relates a trip he and his family once made to the site of the battle of Waterloo. The poignancy of the piece is reflected primarily in the figure of Lam's father, a former South Vietnamese general forced with his family to flee their homeland just before the fall of Saigon in 1975.

General Lam is someone with an extensive knowledge of military history. In particular, he is an unabashed admirer of Napoleon. And it is this unflinching admiration for the Corsican general that provides a connection in Lam's article between the battle of Waterloo and the Vietnam War.

To a large extent, General Lam identifies strongly with his fallen hero. Both were ignominiously defeated, despite acute tactical brilliance; both lost everything they had; and both were exiled to a foreign land in which they never once felt at home. Neither general is willing or able to admit their shortcomings; they both felt defeated by the irresistible forces of fate rather than their respective opponents' superior military capabilities or tactical ability.

As General Lam casts a misty eye over the battlefield, he contemplates history, not just that fateful day in 1815, but his own tragic personal history—a history inextricably linked with that of the homeland from which he is to be permanently exiled. In mourning for Napoleon, he mourns for himself.

At the end of the passage where Simon first sees the "gift" the hunters leave for the beast, what do you think is the "ancient inescapable...

In this passage, Simon is alone in his private jungle retreat when Jack and the hunters plant the sow's head on a stick right in the place where he is resting. The image of the head is extremely disturbing, so much so that even when he closes his eyes, he can still see it. Golding describes it as an "obscene thing [that] grinned and dripped." The flies are gorging on the guts of the sow,...

In this passage, Simon is alone in his private jungle retreat when Jack and the hunters plant the sow's head on a stick right in the place where he is resting. The image of the head is extremely disturbing, so much so that even when he closes his eyes, he can still see it. Golding describes it as an "obscene thing [that] grinned and dripped." The flies are gorging on the guts of the sow, then crawling on Simon. They seem innumerable. This is where Golding introduces the term "the Lord of the Flies" as the name for the sow's head.

When Simon looks back at the head, "his gaze was held by that ancient, inescapable recognition." Golding ties this phrase to the appellation he has just used for the idol-like disembodied head. "Lord of the Flies" is the translation for Beelzebub (or Baal Zebub), the chief of demons or Satan himself, according to Jewish usage at the time of Christ. An alternate meaning associated with Beelzebub is "lord of dung" or "lord of filth." Flies were considered demonic in Jewish culture; the designation Beelzebub was a designation for the devil showing how contemptible and filthy he is. Thus the "ancient inescapable recognition" means that Simon is associating the head with the most ancient understanding of evil, the very root of evil, and the epitome of everything morally repugnant and disgusting. 

In Simon's vision, Golding personifies evil and allows it to reveal itself. It confirms what Simon has understood for a while, namely, that evil comes from within humans. This knowledge is what caused Simon to suggest of the beast, "maybe it's only us." 

Interestingly, using the "Lord of the Flies" as the name of the sow's head also serves to solidify Simon as a Christ-figure and to foreshadow his death. In the New Testament, the Pharisees accused Jesus of casting out demons by Beelzebub. Jesus warned his disciples, "If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub, how much more the members of his household!" Jesus warned his disciples that they would be persecuted, flogged, and hated because of him. A similar fate awaits Simon. 

About which point does a thrown ball naturally spin? A. Center of gravityB. Starting pointC. Highest pointD. Lowest point

The answer is A: the center of gravity.

This rests on the assumption that the ball is thrown in real space where gravity is a given phenomena that exists.

It is difficult to theorise about the way the ball would spin, if indeed it would spin at all, if it were weightless. What could be said is that the ball would appear to be moving away, from the point of view of the person throwing...

The answer is A: the center of gravity.

This rests on the assumption that the ball is thrown in real space where gravity is a given phenomena that exists.

It is difficult to theorise about the way the ball would spin, if indeed it would spin at all, if it were weightless. What could be said is that the ball would appear to be moving away, from the point of view of the person throwing it. Equally, the person throwing it would appear to be moving away from the ball, to any observer that might be sharing the balls perspective.

Deep in space, in places far from massive bodies (with gravitational pull), near weightlessness might be experienced. Total weightlessness however may be just a concept.

When a ball is thrown on Earth (Earth is a massive object in space, from our point of view at least), it has been found that the flight of the ball follows a path such that its center of gravity runs along a parabola, the parabola curving down to the ground. This is a smooth process - balls in flight never 'judder', unless they be buffeted by the wind or bump into other objects - so that it must be that the ball is rotating smoothly about the center of it that is following the smooth parabolic path. Which is to say, it must be rotating somehow smoothly about its center of gravity.

The center of gravity of an object can be located by hanging the object from a string, known as creating a 'plumb line'. Following straight down from where the string is attached to the ground (the direction gravity pulls to), we know that (for regular objects, specifically with no holes) the center of gravity is somewhere on that line. The spot is then more precisely located by lowering the object directly to the ground. If it falls over when the string is removed, the center of gravity is more than half way up. Experimenting with placing the object in various ways upon the ground and seeing when it does and doesn't fall or teeter allows closer and closer location of the balance point, ie the center of gravity.

For a regular spherical ball with even density (unbiased weight) the center of gravity is in the very center of the ball whichever way it is placed on the ground. Only if the ground is sloped, or there is insufficient friction somehow to hold the ball in place, will it move.

Answer A: the ball spins naturally about its center of gravity. [For balls, the center of gravity is simply the center of the ball].

`y= 1/2x^2 , y=0, x=2` Find the x and y moments of inertia and center of mass for the laminas of uniform density `p` bounded by the graphs of...

The center of Mass is:

`(x_(cm),y_(cm))=(M_y/M, M_x/M)`

Where the moments of mass are defined as:

`M_x=int int_A rho(x,y)*y dy dx`

`M_y=int int_A rho(x,y)*x dy dx`

The total mass is defined as:

`M=int int_A rho(x,y)dy dx`

First, lets find the total mass.

`M=int^2_0 [int^(1/2x^2)_0 rho dy] dx`

`M=rho int^2_0 [y|^(1/2x^2)_0] dx`

`M=rho int^2_0 1/2x^2 dx`

`M=rho/2 (1/3)x^3|^2_0`

`M=rho/2 (1/3)2^3`

`M=4/3 rho`

Now lets find the x moment of mass.

`M_x=int^2_0 [int^(1/2x^2)_0 rho*y dy] dx`

`M_x=rho int^2_0 [(1/2)y^2|^(1/2x^2)_0] dx`

`M_x=rho int^2_0 [(1/2)(1/2x^2)^2] dx`

`M_x=rho int^2_0 (1/8)x^4 dx`

`M_x=(rho/8)(1/5)x^5|^2_0`

`M_x=rho/40*2^5=32/40 rho=4/5 rho`

Now the y moment of mass.

`M_y=int^2_0 [int^(1/2x^2)_0 rho*x dy] dx`

`M_y=rho int^2_0 x[int^(1/2x^2)_0 dy] dx`

`M_y=rho int^2_0 x[y|^(1/2x^2)_0] dx`

`M_y=rho int^2_0 x[1/2x^2] dx`

`M_y=rho/2 int^2_0 x^3 dx`

`M_y=rho/2 (1/4)x^4|^2_0`

`M_y=rho/2 (1/4)2^4=2rho`

Therefore the center of mass is:

`(x_(cm),y_(cm))=(M_y/M, M_x/M)=((2rho)/(4/3 rho),(4/5 rho)/(4/3 rho))=(3/2,3/5)`

The moments of inerita or the second moments of the lamina are:

`I_x=int int_A rho(x,y)*y^2 dy dx`

`I_y=int int_A rho(x,y)*x^2 dy dx`

I won't solve these integrals step by step since they are very similar to the others, but you will find that:

`I_x=16/21 rho`

`I_y=16/5 rho`

Scrooge doesn't believe the ghost is Marley until Marley removes a bandage. Which bandage does he remove?

The bandage that Jacob Marley removes is one wrapped around his head and chin. The bandage is first referred to as a kerchief, and it's something Scrooge does not pick up on right away. Scrooge grows more and more desperate to convince himself that Marley's ghost is nothing more than the result of bad digestion, eventually dismissing the ghost entirely. In the face of Scrooge's skepticism, Marley's ghost raises "a frightful cry, and shook its chain...

The bandage that Jacob Marley removes is one wrapped around his head and chin. The bandage is first referred to as a kerchief, and it's something Scrooge does not pick up on right away. Scrooge grows more and more desperate to convince himself that Marley's ghost is nothing more than the result of bad digestion, eventually dismissing the ghost entirely. In the face of Scrooge's skepticism, Marley's ghost raises "a frightful cry, and shook its chain with such a dismal and appalling noise, that Scrooge held on tight to his chair, to save himself from falling in a swoon." The ghost then unwinds the bandage around his head, "as if it were too warm to wear in-doors." Marley's lower jaw then falls onto his chest, and the horror of seeing such an appalling scene convinces Scrooge that the ghost is indeed real.

What is an example of irony in A Doll's House?

Irony plays a significant role in A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen. 

There are several instances of dramatic irony, an example of irony often used in plays because it enables the audience to know more about what is happening than the character does. This device is frequently used to create suspense in a dramatic piece. 

In act 1, an example of dramatic irony occurs when Torvald thinks his wife is a spendthrift. She is,...

Irony plays a significant role in A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen. 

There are several instances of dramatic irony, an example of irony often used in plays because it enables the audience to know more about what is happening than the character does. This device is frequently used to create suspense in a dramatic piece. 

In act 1, an example of dramatic irony occurs when Torvald thinks his wife is a spendthrift. She is, instead, working to repay the loan that she illegally procured for her husband's health. (They went to Italy where Torvald recovered his health after working so hard in earlier years.)  

Another example of dramatic irony occurs in act III. Torvald gallantly tells Nora that he will support her through anything. 

TORVALD. Do you know, Nora [Torvald whispers], I have often wished that you might be threatened by some great danger, so that I might risk my life's blood and everything for your sake?

However, after he learns of Nora having forged her father's signature to obtain the loan needed for them to go to Italy—where Torvald's health was restored—Torvald completely rejects Nora.

TORVALD. What a dreadful awakening! All these eight years. . . she, my pride and my joy—a hypocrite, a liar—oh worse! worse!—a criminal!. . . To go down so miserably, to be destroyed—all because of an irresponsible woman!. . . 
You'll go on living here, that goes without saying. But I won't let you bring up the children; I dare not trust you with them.

In act III, verbal irony, the saying of something that contradicts what one really means, occurs in a conversation between Torvald and Nora. After Torvald's name-calling and bitter words to Nora, Torvald then tells Nora that she must not pay any attention to the hard words he has used against her, Torvald says that he has "really. . . forgiven you." Nora replies with verbal irony, "I thank you for your forgiveness." She then goes out through a door into another room. Later, she leaves Torvald and the children.

In act II, there is an instance of situational irony, the discrepancy between expectation and what really happens. Nora wishes to help her friend Mrs. Linde, so she convinces her husband to fire Krogstad and give Mrs. Linde a job. However, this gesture of Nora's backfires on her as Krogstad then threatens to expose Nora's having committed forgery if he does not get reinstated in his lost position, a position he had until Mrs. Linde was given it.

What artifact from "Everyday Use" becomes a focal point for the family members' different views of their heritage?

The family quilts become this focal point. Wangero (Dee) has already claimed several items that Mama and Maggie still use regularly so that she can "do something artistic" with them. She is treating heritage like something that is past and, moreover, like something that she can hang on the wall and show off. However, for her family, heritage is something that they put to "everyday use." Such a notion is horrifying to Wangero, and she...

The family quilts become this focal point. Wangero (Dee) has already claimed several items that Mama and Maggie still use regularly so that she can "do something artistic" with them. She is treating heritage like something that is past and, moreover, like something that she can hang on the wall and show off. However, for her family, heritage is something that they put to "everyday use." Such a notion is horrifying to Wangero, and she exclaims,

"Maggie can't appreciate these quilts! . . . She'd probably be backward enough to put them to everyday use."

And Mama replies that this is exactly what Maggie ought to do with the quilts. She's been saving them for a long time with no one using them, and they were made to be used—not to be decoration. Mama doesn't understand why Wangero would hang them on the wall and why that is any better than Maggie actually using the blankets, even if they fall apart. For Wangero, the blankets are important because of what they represent to her: a heritage with which she is trying to reconnect (although in a somewhat misguided way). For Maggie and Mama, the quilts are important because of the family stories that go with them and because they can be used to keep warm. Their "everyday use" combined with the way they keep the family's heritage so near is precisely what makes them valuable.

Which British politician agreed with Sam Adams and the other revolutionaries regarding their grievances with the British Parliament's imposition of...

The politician you're thinking of is Edmund Burke. He was born in Ireland (it's important to remember that at this time Ireland was under British rule; Northern Ireland still is) and moved to London after he gave up on his law studies. He was brought up in a religiously mixed house. He was a practicing Anglican and his sister was a Roman Catholic. In most households at this time, this would have been a strong point of contention. But perhaps it informs the type of pragmatism that Burke brought to the British Parliament when he was elected in 1765. 

He knew firsthand what British rule looked like. Perhaps that's why he sided with Sam Adams and his compatriots as they petitioned King George III and the Parliament for redress of their grievances. Originally the American Colonies had no desire to be a separate country. They were, after all, loyal British subjects. However, as the Parliament demanded that the Colonists pay for, and perhaps not unreasonably so, the French and Indian War (what the British termed the Seven Years War), things turned sour. 

American colonists, particularly those who were well off, didn't like the idea of paying additional taxes for their general welfare. Burke saw that the Parliament was being inflexible when it came to the imposition of taxes or duties.

American colonists called for a seat in Parliament and Burke thought that more flexibility by Parliament would help maintain a positive relationship with the king's subjects across the Atlantic, but it was not to be. 

What are some quotes from A Different Mirror?

Important quotes from A Different Mirror by Ronald Takaki incorporate the theme that many different races and cultures helped build America, show the attitude of the ruling structure toward minorities, and help elucidate the perspectives of the people who built America.

Near the beginning of the book, Takaki explains that many people contributed to building America:

Furthermore, many diverse ethnic groups have contributed to the building of the American economy, forming what Walt Whitman saluted as "a vast, surging, hopeful army of workers." They worked in the South's cotton fields, New England's textile mills, Hawaii's canefields, New York's garment factories, California's orchards, Washington's salmon canneries, and Arizona's copper mines. They built the railroad, the great symbol of America's industrial triumph. (10)

He goes on to explain that black, Irish, Japanese, and Chicano workers all had a major part in building the railroad.

In another section, Takaki explores Thomas Jefferson's attitude toward the Native Americans, saying, "To civilize Indians meant, for Jefferson, to take them from their hunting way of life and convert them into farmers." He then says that "in blaming the Indians for their own decline, Jefferson insisted that the transfer of Indian lands to whites had been done fairly and legally" (46).

Takaki also juxtaposes different groups. He says:

The Irish came about the same time as the Chinese, but they had a distinct advantage: the Naturalization Law of 1770 had reserved citizenship for "whites" only. Their compatible complexion allowed them to assimilate by blending into American society. (190)

By showing this, Takaki shows that each group's struggle is unique. He also shows that discrimination via the law wasn't done entirely on the basis of national origin—it was often simply an issue of race.

Takaki explains his reasoning for writing the book when he says:

I believe our education system as a whole has not integrated the histories of all people into our education system, just the Eurocentric view of itself, and the White-centered view of African Americans, and even this is slim to nonexistent. What I find is that most people don't know the fact they don't know, because of the complete lack of information. (5-6)

He's making an appeal to the reader that there is an alternate history that isn't as available. By reading his book, the reader is able to better understand the history of the United States and the many groups that helped create and sustain it.

This module is open try to increase your awareness of your initial reaction/assumptions about a new person you meet (in a clinical and/or social...

This is a very interesting assignment, but there is no way for me to answer this for you because educators do not work in a clinical setting as this requires. This assignment also requires you to do personal observations of encounters you are having. If we were to write this for you, which we cannot do, you would have to lie about those encounters. Of course none of us want that to happen, but we do want you to do well on this assignment. So, let's take a look at some strategies you might apply to help you complete these observations.

First, you have to record four observations, and at the beginning of the assignment it says to "be aware of the types of persons or situations that make you uncomfortable." It sounds like you are supposed to be analyzing why it is you initially felt uncomfortable. Sometimes we feel uncomfortable when we first meet someone because we unknowingly make an assumption about that person. It appears that this assignment is asking you to look at what assumption you might have made that led you to feel uncomfortable. That does not mean your assumption was right or wrong. Consider some interactions you have had where you may have wanted someone else to take over for you, you didn't know what to say to the person, or you wanted to avoid the person. Each of those interactions meant you were uncomfortable, and it would be worth looking at why.

Second, your assignment wants you to describe how you reacted in that scenario. For instance, if you did not know what to say to the person, did you simply avoid saying anything at all? Did you end up saying something you regret? Detail what happened and how you reacted while you were uncomfortable.

Finally, your assignment asks you to pick just one of these four incidents and explain "where you wish things had gone differently or looking back you would like to have handled differently. Describe how you wished it had been handled differently." Going back to the example from the previous paragraph, let's imagine you said something you regret. What do you wish you had said instead? Perhaps what you said made the situation more uncomfortable or caused the other person to react negatively. How could a different response from you have created a different outcome, and what would that different response have been?

It appears this assignment is simply trying to prepare you for situations in the real world where you may be caught off-guard or feel uncomfortable yet will still need to work through the situation. This assignment provides you with some insight into how you typically react in those situations and allows you, in a low-stakes way, to examine how to respond more effectively the next time.

Should Napoleon have taken the puppies from the mother dogs?

When Napoleon takes the puppies from their mothers in chapter three, he claims that he is making himself "responsible" for their education. In other words, he convinces Jessie and Bluebell that he has the puppies' best interests at heart and that he will personally oversee their learning.

In chapter five, however, it becomes clear that Napoleon was lying. He did not educate the puppies at all. In fact, he trained them to become his own...

When Napoleon takes the puppies from their mothers in chapter three, he claims that he is making himself "responsible" for their education. In other words, he convinces Jessie and Bluebell that he has the puppies' best interests at heart and that he will personally oversee their learning.

In chapter five, however, it becomes clear that Napoleon was lying. He did not educate the puppies at all. In fact, he trained them to become his own personal bodyguards. He then uses them to expel Snowball from the farm. Later in the novel, he also uses the puppies to execute some of the other animals who threaten his dominance.

Napoleon, therefore, should not have taken the puppies from their mothers, because he did so under false pretenses. Moreover, he uses the puppies to commit acts of violence against the other animals, thereby enabling his power to grow. 

What is the relationship between Europe and Africa in Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness?

The relationship between Europe and Africa is central to Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. Essentially, Conrad shows that the relationship between the two continents is based on the exploitation of resources. More specifically, Conrad illustrates how European colonial powers venture into the territory of African countries in order to harvest raw materials and resources and enslave native populations. Thus, in exploring the relationship between Europe and Africa, Conrad is also exploring the ways in...

The relationship between Europe and Africa is central to Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness. Essentially, Conrad shows that the relationship between the two continents is based on the exploitation of resources. More specifically, Conrad illustrates how European colonial powers venture into the territory of African countries in order to harvest raw materials and resources and enslave native populations. Thus, in exploring the relationship between Europe and Africa, Conrad is also exploring the ways in which a colonial power exploits other countries for material and/or economic gain. That said, it's important to point out that Conrad suggests colonial excursions don't always work out well for European powers, as he also shows how the evil nature of colonialism corrupts those involved with it. Indeed, several characters (such as Kurtz) end the novel as broken shells and hollow individuals. As such, if Conrad shows how European cultures oppress African natives through colonialism, he also shows how this endeavor irreversibly corrupts the Europeans involved with it.

How does the diction in Lord of the Flies contribute to the atmosphere and theme? How do we see that in this passage? Ralph shuddered. The...

Diction is a literary term that refers to the specific tone of an author's writing; it is reflective of the word choice, dialect, style, and mood that were selected to create a particular atmosphere or emphasize a theme within a text.

Before we examine how William Golding uses diction to contribute to atmosphere and theme, let's consider the context of the passage that you have quoted. This part of the story occurs in Chapter Six of the novel. After Sam and Eric have seen the dead parachutist and mistaken it for the evil beast that the children believe stalks the island, the boys rush to Ralph to tell him of this horror. This leads to an expedition in which the boys attempt to scour the island for any beasts that may be lurking in the shadows. At this point in the book, Ralph's power is already slipping away from him, and Jack has taken the lead on the expedition. They finally stumble across a particularly geographically intimidating part of the island. As the boys are too scared to cross the ledge before them, Ralph decides to explore it by himself. The passage you quoted describes his reaction to surveying the land around him.

We might initially think that Golding has assumed a fairly neutral tone throughout the book; it is neither too formal nor overly informal in terms of approach or style. However, when we look closer at his use of word choice, similes, and metaphor, it is clear that this passage is meant to be perceived as ominous and moody. 

Goldman uses a simile to compare Ralph's view of the swelling waves in the lagoon to "the breathing of some stupendous creature." Immediately, this creates the unnerving sense that Ralph is standing upon and before some living force that is much greater and more powerful than his own fallible, small body. The description of this view only expands with Golding commenting on what is revealed when the water recedes: the "pink tables of granite" and "strange growths" of sea vegetation.

We are meant to understand through this description that the island is, in fact, capable of hiding unusual facets of itself. The way that the water is described through simile--"whispering like the wind among the heads of the forest"--suggests that it is a keeper of secrets. Do these strange sights and observations imply that perhaps the island could, after all, hide a beastly creature that threatens the boys' safety? We do not know for sure, which is what adds to the dramatic atmosphere of uncertainty and potential danger here.

This imagery only intensifies with the next diction-related choice to describe the water's appearance against the rocks "like cliffs," which gives the sense that the water is imposing in its motion--something that could rise and fall with equally destructive power, attacking something even as sturdy as a slab of rock. The ocean itself takes on the metaphorical form of a "sleeping leviathan"--or sea monster--which breathes out and completely overhauls the entire scene; the water rises and "roars" over the rock table, entirely consuming it. We see the water's power to give and take, create and destroy--forces which are compared to the act of breathing and the presence of some otherworldly, gigantic life force. 

It's obvious that the diction here contributes to our understanding of the island as a treacherous place for children--one whose shifting landscape could result in injury or death at any time. Yet what is perhaps not as obvious is the fact that these authorial choices--the use of simile, metaphor, word choice, and mood--also support one of the emerging themes of the book thus far: the war between civilization and the wild, between savagery and humanity. With Ralph's power over the boys diminishing, seeing him observe the natural world helps us contextualize his place within it and reminds us of the weakness of human life and free will in comparison to the magnitude of the earth. This is a place that has existed long before the boys were shipwrecked upon it, and it is a place that will continue to exist long after they leave it. In much the same way, we can see that Jack's wildness--his connection with what is inherent to the natural world rather than with the moral boundaries of civilization--will inevitably overpower Ralph's desire for rules and order. 

When was the first house made?

The first house might not have been much of a "house" as we would regard it today, but rather as a gathering place. Australopithecus humans probably used tree canopies to get out of the rain. Archaeologists have discovered a large meeting hall in Nice, France that could have been used for a house, but they doubt that early humans used it for this purpose. It dates from about 400,000 years ago. Some of the earliest...

The first house might not have been much of a "house" as we would regard it today, but rather as a gathering place. Australopithecus humans probably used tree canopies to get out of the rain. Archaeologists have discovered a large meeting hall in Nice, France that could have been used for a house, but they doubt that early humans used it for this purpose. It dates from about 400,000 years ago. Some of the earliest examples of houses come from the Mezhirich people of Ukraine from 15,000 years ago, who built houses on the steppe in village communities in order to hunt animals better. Still, they do not see the trappings of "home" here. The first "houses" that archeologists accept as such come from the Natufians from the Middle East. These dwellings date from about 12,000 years ago. These houses are seen as semi-permanent shelters and not just protection against the elements.

Who is Mr. Underwood in the novel To Kill a Mockingbird?

Mr. Underwood is the owner, editor, and printer of The Maycomb Tribune, the town's newspaper. He works and lives in the Tribune office, which is located across from the courthouse, and spends his days at his linotype. He constantly refreshes himself with his ever-present gallon jug of cherry wine.

When a mob of men approaches the courthouse and demands that Atticus leave (he is sitting outside, protecting Tom Robinson), Mr. Underwood trains a double-barreled shotgun on the mob. Though Atticus doesn't realize it until the mob has dispersed, Mr. Underwood has him covered during the entire episode. However, Mr. Underwood, whose first name is Braxton Bragg (after a Confederate general), won't allow a black person to go near him. Despite Mr. Underwood's apparent racism, he writes an editorial in his paper after Tom Robinson is convicted of raping Mayella Ewell. He writes that it's a sin to kill people who are crippled or weak, much as it's a sin to shoot a songbird. Mr. Underwood is clearly committed to his own vision of justice and believes that the verdict in the Tom Robinson case is unjust. 

Why can it be said that Hobbes is the founder of modern political liberalism? "For these words of good, evil, and contemptible are ever used with...

This quote relates to Hobbes's belief in Mechanism, a view that everything in the universe is explained by the interactions of material objects. Mechanism related to the idea of materialism, which is that there is only one substance in existence in the world. The theories of Mechanism and materialism, which Hobbes helped to explain and expound, were opposed to the philosophy of dualism, which stated that there were two distinct substances of things in the...

This quote relates to Hobbes's belief in Mechanism, a view that everything in the universe is explained by the interactions of material objects. Mechanism related to the idea of materialism, which is that there is only one substance in existence in the world. The theories of Mechanism and materialism, which Hobbes helped to explain and expound, were opposed to the philosophy of dualism, which stated that there were two distinct substances of things in the world. An example of dualism is Descartes's idea of the separation of the mind and the body.

Hobbes believed that all human actions and emotions originate in bodily actions,  which are referred to as endeavors. In turn, all these bodily actions can be traced to universal laws that govern the mechanical workings of the universe. Therefore, there is a strong and direct connection between the social and psychological world and the physical world, in Hobbes's view. In the passage above, Hobbes expresses his view that there is nothing that is inherently good or evil; instead, the world is objectively neutral, and it is people who give things in the world their subjective quality. Therefore, Hobbes was a relativist in terms of ethics.

Hobbes can be seen as a founder of modern liberal theory (though others think of him as a totalitarian) because he believed that man is born into a state of nature in which he enjoys a certain degree of liberty. People give up this liberty to enter into a social contract with a ruler, but they have the right to reject the ruler if the ruler violates the protections the ruler must adhere to. Hobbes's belief in humans' right to a certain degree of liberty marks him in some ways as a liberal. 

In Voices of freedom document 182, what did Schlafly criticize about ERA?

Schlafly believed that the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) would harm women. As she wrote, "Why should we lower ourselves to 'equal rights' when we already have the status of special privilege?" She thought that the passage of the ERA would make women subject to harsh realities that men have to face, such as the draft. In addition, she thought that the ERA would get rid of a women's right to alimony and child support and...

Schlafly believed that the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) would harm women. As she wrote, "Why should we lower ourselves to 'equal rights' when we already have the status of special privilege?" She thought that the passage of the ERA would make women subject to harsh realities that men have to face, such as the draft. In addition, she thought that the ERA would get rid of a women's right to alimony and child support and would instead establish a woman's right to these supports based only on her income. As the law stood in 1972 when she wrote this document, a man was always required to support his wife and children. Schlafly felt the ERA would interfere with these provisions and would instead force a woman to find a job to support her family. She also believed that the ERA could interfere with the custom by which women are always awarded custody of their children in the case of divorce. Finally, Shlafly felt that women's "libbers," as she calls them, were "radicals" who were damaging the family and women's traditional roles within it. She supported women's acquisition of equal pay and equal job and educational opportunities through what she calls "any necessary legislation," but not the ERA.

In what ways was the Men of Maize influenced by the Popol Vuh, the Mayan creation story?

"Men of Maize" is a novel written in 1949 by a Guatamalan author who based many parts of it on traditional Mayan mythology. Probably most prominently, the Popol Vuh or Mayan creation story, influenced the novel through its connection to maize. In Popol Vuh creation mythology, the final version of humanity was constructed by the gods with maize. Asturias, the author of "Men of Maize", connected man to natural elements in a pyramid that included...

"Men of Maize" is a novel written in 1949 by a Guatamalan author who based many parts of it on traditional Mayan mythology. Probably most prominently, the Popol Vuh or Mayan creation story, influenced the novel through its connection to maize. In Popol Vuh creation mythology, the final version of humanity was constructed by the gods with maize. Asturias, the author of "Men of Maize", connected man to natural elements in a pyramid that included corn, or maize.

The term Men of Maize in the novel refers to an isolated Indian community that several leaders attempt to save from exploitation due to outsiders attempting to take over the harvest of the maize. Not only does the importance of maize in Popol Vuh influence the novel but also that of nahualism, or the ability to change oneself into the form of a guardian animal. This plays an important role in both Mayan legend of Popol Vuh and in Men of Maize. In both, animals are part of the genealogy of man and their spirits play a vital role in daily life and the events that happen day to day.

The novel "Men of Maize", similarly to Popol Vuh, is told in parts or mini tales that are connected and create a bigger story or myth that explains the creation of humanity, its trials and tribulations. Maize and animal connections are the thread running through both the Mayan creation myth and the novel. It is maize, eternally connected to man, that weaves throughout the both, tying together the various animal and human tales. This is traditional in Mayan myths and a clear influence on the novel "Men of Maize."

Which step of the scientific method do we return to if the prediction is wrong?

 It might seem natural to assume that your hypothesis is wrong, and therefore rethink your hypothesis. In fact, in a popular article for LiveScience (see link below), that's exactly what the author suggests: The scientist either rejects the hypothesis outright, or modifies the hypothesis to account for the failed prediction. Either way, the implication is that the scientist "goes back to the drawing board" to come up with new predictions to test.

But in the real world, scientists don't always assume there is something wrong with the hypothesis. Before you reject your hypothesis, it's important to check your reasoning. You might have made a mistake at the step of generating predictions. Does your prediction necessarily follow from your hypothesis?

Or you might have made a mistake during the testing process. Did you execute a clean experiment? Did you successfully control for other factors that might have influenced the results?

It's not hard to imagine how you could make a mistake during testing. You might fail to control for all the underlying differences between your treatment and control groups. Many phenomena are caused by multiple factors. If you fail to confirm your prediction, it could be because there was something different between groups that you failed to account for.

But what about the validity of your prediction? It's important to check that step too. For example, let's suppose your hypothesis is that gorillas are capable of visually recognizing themselves, and so you make the following prediction: If gorillas possess the ability of self-recognition, then if they look in the mirror, and see a smudge of white paint on their foreheads, they will try to rub it off.

You perform this experiment -- applying paint to gorillas while they sleep, and then allowing them to look in the mirror after they wake up. They look at their reflections, but fail to touch the paint spot or try to rub it off.

Should you abandon your hypothesis that gorillas are capable of visual self-recognition just because your prediction was wrong? On reflection, the prediction has problems. We can imagine cases where human beings -- who have self-awareness -- might not react in the predicted way.

This experiment is a real one. It's been called the "mirror test" and it has been performed on a variety of species. But some researchers have pointed out that the prediction doesn't necessarily follow from the hypothesis. For instance, gorillas might ignore the paint spot because they simply don't care how they look. These researchers haven't rejected the hypothesis merely because the prediction was wrong. Their approach, instead, is to go back to the step where you generate predictions from your hypothesis -- taking better care to come up with predictions that are more tightly entailed by your hypothesis.

What do the gold coins the boy must scramble for at the battle royal turn out to be?

The unnamed narrator, the "Invisible Man" of the story has been invited to give his high school graduation address to the local townsfolk. Unfortunately, it turns out instead that he is simply a bit player in an evening of raucous entertainment for a baying mob of drunken white men.

After being forced to participate in a blindfolded boxing bout called a battle royal, the narrator is required to get down on his hands and knees...

The unnamed narrator, the "Invisible Man" of the story has been invited to give his high school graduation address to the local townsfolk. Unfortunately, it turns out instead that he is simply a bit player in an evening of raucous entertainment for a baying mob of drunken white men.

After being forced to participate in a blindfolded boxing bout called a battle royal, the narrator is required to get down on his hands and knees and crawl upon an electrified rug for what he believes to be gold coins. It turns out that they are, in fact, worthless brass tokens.

The symbolism is inescapable. Gold is related to power, and as a young African American man in a deeply racist society the narrator doesn't have any. Despite jumping through so many proverbial hoops for the delectation of white people, he is still treated like dirt, reminded of his lowly position in a society that couldn't care less about him.

How does Rainsford's attitude about hunting differ from Whitney's?

On the yacht heading to South America where they will hunt jaguars, Rainsford and Whitney disagree over hunting. Whitney suggests that the animals they hunt have feelings such as fear and pain. Rainsford totally disregards these ideas and claims the animals have "no understanding" of what is happening to them. Rainsford is a selfish hunter. He views it as his prerogative to hunt down animals. It is, for him, the "best sport in the world"...

On the yacht heading to South America where they will hunt jaguars, Rainsford and Whitney disagree over hunting. Whitney suggests that the animals they hunt have feelings such as fear and pain. Rainsford totally disregards these ideas and claims the animals have "no understanding" of what is happening to them. Rainsford is a selfish hunter. He views it as his prerogative to hunt down animals. It is, for him, the "best sport in the world" and he certainly isn't going to let thoughts of the animal get in the way of his enjoyment. He tells Whitney, "Be a realist. The world is made up of two classes—the hunters and the huntees. Luckily, you and I are the hunters."

This conversation provides foreshadowing for Rainsford's later encounter with General Zaroff. The general makes the same basic argument when he explains to Rainsford why he hunts men. He claims it is his right. He is the fittest and strongest. He says, "If I wish to hunt, why should I not hunt?" The early discussion with Whitney also proves to be ironic because later, when Rainsford is being hunted, he does feel the "fear of pain and the fear of death" as he is being pursued by Zaroff through the jungles of the general's island. At the end he refers to himself as a "beast at bay" and readers may infer that he will give up hunting after his bizarre confrontation with Zaroff.

How was North Alabama different from Maycomb County, according to Scout in Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird?

In Chapter 2 of Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, we learn that Scout's new first-grade teacher, Miss Caroline Fisher, has recently moved to Maycomb from Winston County in North Alabama. Scout notes that, upon hearing this, the children whispered among themselves for fear she may "prove to harbor her share of the peculiarities indigenous to that region."

Scout continues to explain that Winston County considers itself to be so different from the rest of Alabama that it seceded from the state of Alabama when Alabama seceded from the Union in 1861. Scout gives the following reasons for the differences between Winston County and the rest of Alabama:

North Alabama was full of Liquor Interests, Big Mules, steel companies, Republicans, professors, and other persons of no background. (Ch. 2)

Not all of Scout's comments about North Alabama can be historically supported, which shows she is probably reciting what she learned as young Scout through gossip and not speaking as the adult Jean Louise.

Historically, Winston County did not actually secede from Alabama though it proclaimed its right to and its desire to. Winston County has a very different climate and environment from the rest of Alabama, which made it difficult for cotton production in the area. Instead, the economy relied on subsistence farming (McRae, D., "Free State of Winston," Encyclopedia of Alabama). Since there were no cotton planters in Winston County, there were very few slave owners. Since slavery was not an issue in Winston County, many of its residents were Unionists. Though an overwhelming majority of Winston County residents voted for Democrat John C. Brekinridge when he ran for U.S. President, they also voted for Unionist Christopher Sheats to represent Winston County at Alabama's secession convention (McRae). Sheats "refused to sign the secession ordinance" and called for neutrality in the county (McRae). After the Civil War, Winston County's Unionists formed a strong Republican base, in contrast to the rest of Alabama's citizens, who were Democrats. The formation of the strong Republican base can account for Scout saying that the people of Winston County were Republicans.

It was at an unofficial gathering at Looney's Tavern that Unionists in Winston County proclaimed Alabama had no constitutional right to secede and declared that, if Alabama did have the right to secede, then Winston County equally had the right to secede from Alabama (McRae). Scout's reference to "Liquor Interests" may refer to the historical gathering at Looney's Tavern. However, though many Unionists in Winston County vehemently opposed the Confederates, no documentation was ever signed officially seceding the county from Alabama. 

what is the epiphany in Greasy Lake

The unnamed narrator of "Greasy Lake" arrives at the lake with his friends at night to party. He thinks he is tough. He and his friends end up with more trouble than they bargained for, including a fight in which the narrator thinks he's killed his opponent (he hasn't). After the friends of the downed man chase them away, at which point the narrator drops his keys in the grass at the wrong moment so...

The unnamed narrator of "Greasy Lake" arrives at the lake with his friends at night to party. He thinks he is tough. He and his friends end up with more trouble than they bargained for, including a fight in which the narrator thinks he's killed his opponent (he hasn't). After the friends of the downed man chase them away, at which point the narrator drops his keys in the grass at the wrong moment so that he can't drive off, he eventually witnesses his opponents smashing up his mother's car. 

When it is all over and dawn is breaking, the narrator's epiphany is that he is not as tough as thought he was. He is sobered by his experience and begins to mature as he recognizes that what he considered fun and games really could have had far more serious consequences.

What is your reaction to Zaroff's statement, "We try to be civilized here"?

This statement, which comes while Zaroff and Rainsford are having dinner in the general's chateau, should be considered highly ironic. Even though Zaroff's island is in a remote area off the coast of South America, he prides himself on procuring the finest food and drink, including Russian soup and the best champagne. Zaroff is also, as Rainsford labels him, quite the "cosmopolite." His clothes are made by a premier London tailor, and his reading material...

This statement, which comes while Zaroff and Rainsford are having dinner in the general's chateau, should be considered highly ironic. Even though Zaroff's island is in a remote area off the coast of South America, he prides himself on procuring the finest food and drink, including Russian soup and the best champagne. Zaroff is also, as Rainsford labels him, quite the "cosmopolite." His clothes are made by a premier London tailor, and his reading material includes the works of the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius (much of Aurelius's work had to do with ethics). During the conversation, Zaroff reveals to Rainsford that he has invented a new type of hunting. He actually hunts the men who shipwreck on the island. This gruesome practice clashes with his seemingly civilized and cultured demeanor. In reality, Zaroff is a sociopathic murderer and is far from civilized. As expected, Rainsford reacts negatively to the general's disclosure:

"I have electricity. We try to be civilized here."

"Civilized? And you shoot down men?"

Although the general attempts to argue that it is his right to hunt men, Rainsford is repulsed and ultimately becomes Zaroff's prey in "The Most Dangerous Game."

In The story of My Life by Helen Keller, how was Helen as a learner?

In The Story of My Life, Helen Keller describes herself as an avid learner. As soon as she got the language connection at the pump, she began learning words as quickly as possible. She sought out these words so she could communicate about people and things in her environment. 

Aside from language, Helen also had a curiosity about the world. The book describes her many adventures in learning, facilitated by a teacher who wanted...

In The Story of My Life, Helen Keller describes herself as an avid learner. As soon as she got the language connection at the pump, she began learning words as quickly as possible. She sought out these words so she could communicate about people and things in her environment. 

Aside from language, Helen also had a curiosity about the world. The book describes her many adventures in learning, facilitated by a teacher who wanted her to learn. 

Helen did not shy away from a learning challenge. It is difficult for a sighted deaf person to learn to speak and more so for a blind and deaf person. But Helen set a goal of learning to speak, and she did. 

It was very unusual for women to go to college, but Harvard had established a college for women, Radcliffe, and Helen went there. Going to college was difficult because none of the textbooks were in Braille. Someone had to read each text and finger spell each word in Helen's hand. 

There are two factors that contribute to the fascination with Helen Keller's story: one is the desire of Annie Sullivan to teach Helen. She worked hard to figure out how to reach Helen and then how to give Helen rich learning experiences. The other was Helen's insatiable desire to learn. 

What was Sodapop's goal in The Outsiders by S. E. Hinton?

Throughout the novel, Sodapop is a happy-go-lucky character who dropped out of high school to work at a gas station. Many females find Soda attractive, but he is in a relationship with a girl named Sandy who he wishes to marry. Unfortunately for Soda, Sandy's parents disapprove of their daughter marrying Soda, and she moves to Florida. Soda is devastated to find out the love of his life moved and didn't feel the same way...

Throughout the novel, Sodapop is a happy-go-lucky character who dropped out of high school to work at a gas station. Many females find Soda attractive, but he is in a relationship with a girl named Sandy who he wishes to marry. Unfortunately for Soda, Sandy's parents disapprove of their daughter marrying Soda, and she moves to Florida. Soda is devastated to find out the love of his life moved and didn't feel the same way about him. In my opinion, Sodapop's goal was to marry Sandy and start a family with her. Another issue that bothers Sodapop throughout the novel is Darry and Ponyboy's confrontational relationship. Soda supports both Pony and Darry and cannot stand to watch them fight. Another goal of Sodapop's would be to repair Darry and Pony's relationship.